CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 29 septembre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s94C6321B { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s12CB6876 { margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sDAD2B73A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s6E03D265 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD7AA71C8 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s354F7CEB { width:27.79pt; display:inline-block } .sD407E162 { width:116.42pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s2785BC08 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3A357E38 { text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .s1DE04BC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:8pt }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 19207/17 Milan TANASKOVIĆ against Serbia and 20 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 29   September 2020 as a Committee composed of:   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President,   Georges Ravarani,   Jolien Schukking, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants is set out in the appended table. The applicants were represented by Ms D. Janković, a lawyer practising in Čačak. The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 concerning the non-enforcement of domestic decisions given against socially/State-owned companies were communicated to the Serbian Government (“the Government”) on 25   February 2020. THE LAW Joinder of the applications Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. Complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given against socially/State-owned companies) The Government submitted that the final domestic decisions in the applicants’ favour had been enforced. The applicants did not dispute that fact. The Court reiterates that an application may be rejected as an abuse of the right of individual application within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention if, among other reasons, it was knowingly based on false information or if significant information and documents were deliberately omitted, either where they were known from the outset or where new significant developments occurred during the proceedings. Incomplete and therefore misleading information may amount to an abuse of the right of application, especially if the information in question concerns the very core of the case and no sufficient explanation is given for the failure to disclose that information (see Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR   2014; S.A.S. v. France [GC], no. 43835/11, § 67, ECHR 2014; and Bihorac Hajdaragić v. Serbia (dec.) [Committee], no. 34929/16, 6   November 2018). Turning to the present case, the Court observes that between 8 March 2017 and 31 March 2019 the sums awarded in the domestic decisions at issue were fully paid by the State. The applicants did not inform the Court about that development before notice of the applications was given to the Government and no explanation for this omission was provided. Having regard to the fact that the information withheld concerned the very core of the applications, the Court finds that such conduct was contrary to the purpose of the right of individual application. Lawyers must understand that, having due regard to the Court’s duty to examine allegations of human rights violations, they must show a high level of professional prudence and meaningful cooperation with the Court by sparing it the introduction of unmeritorious complaints and, both before proceedings have been instituted and thereafter, they must inquire diligently into all the details of the case, meticulously abide by all the relevant rules of procedure and must urge their clients to do the same. Otherwise, the wilful or negligent misuse of the Court’s resources may undermine the credibility of lawyers’ work in the eyes of the Court and even, if it occurs systematically, may result in particular individual lawyers being banned from representing applicants under Rule 36 § 4 (b) of the Rules of Court (see Stevančević v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 67618/09, § 29, 10   January 2017). In view of the above, the Court finds that these applications constitute an abuse of the right of individual application and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§   3 (a) and   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 22 October 2020.   Liv Tigerstedt   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given against socially/State-owned companies) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Date of birth   Relevant domestic decision Start date of non-enforcement period Date of enforcement of domestic decision     19207/17 01/03/2017 Milan TANASKOVIĆ 09/04/1958 Municipal Court in Čačak, 19/08/2009   05/03/2010   08/03/2017       62353/17 18/08/2017 Milovan RUŽIČIĆ 09/04/1962 Municipal Court in Čačak, 20/02/2008   21/05/2008   31/10/2017       73020/17 29/09/2017 Đurđija MILOŠEVIĆ 23/07/1947 Municipal Court in Čačak, 07/02/2008   21/05/2008   31/10/2017       73022/17 29/09/2017 Radoš MILOŠEVIĆ 09/10/1947 Municipal Court in Čačak, 07/02/2008   21/05/2008   31/10/2017       75553/17 19/10/2017 Milutin MILOŠEVIĆ 06/08/1953 Municipal Court in Čačak, 28/03/2008   27/10/2008   01/11/2017       75835/17 20/10/2017 Radomir NIKOLIĆ 01/06/1954 Municipal Court in Čačak, 25/02/2008   07/07/2008   07/11/2017       75845/17 20/10/2017 Jovan JOVANOVIĆ 15/02/1957 Municipal Court in Čačak, 25/02/2008   07/07/2008   07/11/2017       75851/17 19/10/2017 Branko TOMIĆ 26/09/1958 Municipal Court in Čačak, 28/03/2008   27/10/2008   31/10/2017       75864/17 20/10/2017 Jeremija KOTLAJIĆ 01/06/1954 Municipal Court in Čačak, 21/01/2008   19/03/2009   07/11/2017     75867/17 20/10/2017 Dragan MARKOVIĆ 26/11/1952 Municipal Court in Čačak, 25/02/2008   07/07/2008   07/11/2017     75869/17 20/10/2017 Milinko MILOJEVIĆ 09/05/1948 Municipal Court in Čačak, 08/07/2008   06/03/2009   08/11/2017     77835/17 04/11/2017 Olga ĐOKIĆ 21/02/1952 Municipal Court in Čačak, 18/06/2009   25/01/2010   19/12/2017     77840/17 04/11/2017 Zoran ĐURIĆ 25/10/1966 Municipal Court in Čačak, 12/03/2008   10/06/2008   19/12/2017     78221/17 04/11/2017 Vučeta JAKOVLJEVIĆ 15/05/1959 Municipal Court in Čačak, 18/06/2009   25/01/2010   19/12/2017     78250/17 04/11/2017 Nada PANIĆ 14/03/1951 Municipal Court in Čačak, 08/07/2008   06/03/2009   08/11/2017     78331/17 04/11/2017 Milan TANOVIĆ 27/10/1948 Municipal Court in Čačak, 08/07/2008   06/03/2009   08/11/2017     78431/17 04/11/2017 Zoran GRBIĆ 25/04/1965 Municipal Court in Čačak, 12/03/2008   10/06/2008   19/12/2017     52202/18 19/10/2018 Nenad RUŽIČIĆ 25/03/1957 Čačak Court of First Instance, 03/02/2012   13/02/2014   15/11/2018     53103/18 24/10/2018 Dimitrije MILADINOVIĆ 13/01/1958 Municipal Court in Čačak, 31/01/2008   Municipal Court in Čačak, 18/06/2009   01/12/2008   26/03/2010   31/10/2018   31/10/2018   53114/18 24/10/2018 Miodrag BORIŠIĆ 20/07/1961 Municipal Court in Čačak, 31/01/2008   01/12/2008   30/10/2018     55242/18 05/11/2018 Miroljub MITROVIĆ 15/03/1950 First Municipal Court in Belgrade, 18/10/2005   22/03/2006   30/01/2019